|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 28, 2018 1:01:41 GMT -5
I had no idea that people still cared about Obergefell. I thought everyone had moved on to public accommodation issues, a la Masterpiece Cake Shop, but that we all realized same-sex couples getting Social Security widow’s benefits was NBD. Huh. Learn something new every day. Remember the movie “Back to the future”? It’s like that only in reverse. In five years we’re going to be back in the Lochner era.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 28, 2018 6:43:12 GMT -5
What's the point in hanging on to the popular vote complaint? If elections were based upon popular votes instead of the electoral college, campaigns would be run differently. There's no way to predict who would have won if elections were based on the popular vote. Throughout the entire primary and general election campaigns, Trump had seven rallies in NY, and nine in California. He didn't even have one rally in California during the general election campaign. He didn't spend time in those states, despite their huge number of electoral votes, because he did not expect to win them and he would be better off campaigning in states where he had a shot. Both parties planned their campaigns based upon maximizing their electoral votes. We've all seen how that played out. It's not a popular vote complaint to point out that the choice does not represent the will of the majority of his constituents. This isn't merely looking at it as a Hillary vs Trump issue. Do you think the president represents the social and political views of Gary Johnson or Jill Stein voters, another ~6 million voters? There are a number of unprovable what ifs regarding the last election. What if it had been a popular vote and campaigns were run differently? What if people didn't think Hillary had the election wrapped up, considered the potential consquences of the election, and showed up to vote instead of sitting at home in apathy? What if every Johnson and Stein voter didn't vote their conscience and chose between Hillary or Trump? None of these questions are answerable or even relevant. Trump won the electoral college, he is rightfully the president, he (along with Congress) has the duty to fill the empty seat, and neither a majority of the population nor the voting population chose him to be in this spot.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Jun 28, 2018 7:21:59 GMT -5
jimmyjiggles, I'd like to respond to this comment you made: "I think the majority of “slams” (I think is what Christina said) have been directed at POTUS and his...ah...err unique style of governance and decision making. I do not think you should conflate that with a commentary on your values, which I should point out, I have no knowledge of, other than you describe yourself as a conservative. Indeed your ability to articulate yourself so well suggests to me that you are selling yourself quite short if you are conflating your views with the personage of the big boss." I'm not conflating my views with the personage of Trump. My post wasn't about the silliness I've seen written about Trump. Honestly, I roll my eyes at some of the stuff he says, does, and tweets. He does intentionally to get under people's skin, and it works. So, if someone wants to take a dig at him, I can shrug that off. What I have a harder time shrugging off are comments mocking people of faith, and the suggestion that conservatives shouldn't work for SSA. "Everyone wears magic underwear." "I continue to be amazed by the number of conservatives interested in working for the welfare office." "It's just interesting wanting to help administer redistribution programs you don't believe should exist and voting for politicians that want to cut your pay and benefits. Guess it's not that abnormal, plenty of Americans vote against their economic interest. It's almost like a pacifist joining the military." "Just like how I am morally opposed to the death penalty but took that job as an executioner. After all my taxes are already paying for it and if I don’t apply someone else will just get the job!" Those were the comments that had been made prior to my post that were directed not at Trump but at conservatives. If you go back to my post, you'll see that I was directing my attention to those, and not to the Trump comments. I'm glad that this thread has taken a more civil tone. When I started the thread, I was hoping it would bring out some serious discussion about how Kennedy's successor might be chosen, and who it might be, but without partisan rancor. I get it that one side of the aisle wished Trump never had a chance to nominate anyone for Justice. For him to have two seats to fill might cause angst, and the thought that Ginsberg could step down during his administration could be unimaginable. I just hope that the Senate can advise and consent as the deliberative body that it used to be, and not make the confirmation hearings little more than sound bites aimed to satisfy their voters.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 28, 2018 7:59:50 GMT -5
neither a majority of the population nor the voting population chose him to be in this spot. To be clear, Breyer and Ginsburg were also appointed by someone who wasn't chosen by the majority of the voting population. But Clinton was chosen by a plurality of voters. There was not a candidate that the voters clearly preferred, which is a marked contrast to 2000 and 2016, when the losing candidate actually got more votes than the winner. Yes, I obviously understand the electoral college, but I still think it's pretty remarkable that 40 percent of the presidential elections I've voted in have been won by a candidate who got fewer votes than another candidate. (And to be fair in the representation of the facts, when Roberts and Alito were appointed, Bush 43 had won the popular vote once - it's just doubtful that he would have been president at that point had he not won in 2000, when he didn't win the popular vote.)
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 28, 2018 8:11:04 GMT -5
Rather than lament the popular vote outcome, and the result on the USSC, as Harp does, I would point out that the goal of balance in the court was pretty blantalty subverted by the Rs with the Merrick Garland debacle. I think the popular vote issue is a remarkable one and one that should really give us pause to consider whether we truly value democratic institutions. I could go on and on, but I will pivot back to the above point. That seat was stolen, plain and simple. I will never, ever get over that. The refusal to even meet with Garland was unforgivable. Both of our kids share names with remarkable SCOTUS justices, and I have joked with my husband that if our third is a boy, we should name him Merrick.
|
|
|
Post by marathon on Jun 28, 2018 8:19:19 GMT -5
The distinction is that Viagra is prescribed to correct a disordered condition, whereas birth control pills are prescribed to prevent a natural, ordered condition. Also, that some birth control pills are abortifacient - that is, they kill the unborn baby - whereas Viagra does not ordinarily kill people, at least not in the intended course of its working. I looked up Griswold - that is the case that found rights that were “emanations” from the “penumbras” of the Constitution. I would overrule it. I think that my favorite Supreme Court Justice, Justice Thomas whom I’ve met several times, has a sign in his office “Please do not emanate in the penumbras.” Even if it were overruled, it does not mean that contraception would be illegal - it simply would mean that state legislatures could choose to make it illegal if they decided to. Does anyone really think that there is any state legislature that would do so? Ban condoms, birth control pills, etc.? Of course not. That’s the big philosophical difference - the question of whether it would be a good idea or a stupid idea to pass a certain law is completely different from the question of whether that law is unconstitutional. Without getting into any of the other isssues in this thread, I would point out that birth control is not only prescribed by the medical community to “prevent a natural, ordered condition” or as “an abortifacient.” In fact, it is often used to treat endometriosis, which is particularly painful, as well as polycystic ovary syndrome. A few other conditions it is prescribed for include menorrhagia, menstral migraines, Peri-menopausal symptoms and even acne. So this class of drugs can, and is often, used to treat a “disordered condition.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 10:31:48 GMT -5
I had no idea that people still cared about Obergefell. I thought everyone had moved on to public accommodation issues, a la Masterpiece Cake Shop, but that we all realized same-sex couples getting Social Security widow’s benefits was NBD. Huh. Learn something new every day. Remember the movie “Back to the future”? It’s like that only in reverse. In five years we’re going to be back in the Lochner era. We've been back in the Lochner era since Obergefell was decided.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 10:43:19 GMT -5
neither a majority of the population nor the voting population chose him to be in this spot. To be clear, Breyer and Ginsburg were also appointed by someone who wasn't chosen by the majority of the voting population. But Clinton was chosen by a plurality of voters. There was not a candidate that the voters clearly preferred, which is a marked contrast to 2000 and 2016, when the losing candidate actually got more votes than the winner. Yes, I obviously understand the electoral college, but I still think it's pretty remarkable that 40 percent of the presidential elections I've voted in have been won by a candidate who got fewer votes than another candidate. (And to be fair in the representation of the facts, when Roberts and Alito were appointed, Bush 43 had won the popular vote once - it's just doubtful that he would have been president at that point had he not won in 2000, when he didn't win the popular vote.) The electoral college is actually not a historical anomaly. It was deliberately designed the way it is. Our Founders were perhaps the greatest group of geniuses ever gathered in one place in the history of humankind. They could do math. Not only is it not a historical oddity. In substance, it's not even a modern oddity. Modern English-style parliamentary systems essentially elect their prime ministers the way the American Speaker of the House is elected. The majority-party members of the lower house elect him or her after the members of the lower house have been elected by the public in single-member districts (like congressmen). So in England (and countries with similar systems), one party might get more popular votes in parliamentary elections but not get a majority of members in Parliament, meaning the PM can be elected by the members of Parliament of the party that got fewer popular votes. It happens often.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 28, 2018 10:56:27 GMT -5
LOL. I refuse to believe that a group of people who excluded 50 percent of the population based on their sex and thought it was OK to enslave people based on their race represents the greatest group of geniuses ever gathered. Yes, they had some good ideas. They were also responsible for one of the greatest atrocities in human history.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 28, 2018 11:11:39 GMT -5
If I'm remembering my presidential history correctly, we've only had three presidential elections where the popular vote loser one the electoral college, and two of them have happened in the past 16 years. And given that, I don't believe we've ever had three, let alone four, SCOTUS justices appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Please correct me if I'm forgetting something and have my facts wrong.
Even if you think all of this is awesome and good for the country, it's still quite remarkable because we just haven't been here before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 11:48:20 GMT -5
LOL. I refuse to believe that a group of people who excluded 50 percent of the population based on their sex and thought it was OK to enslave people based on their race represents the greatest group of geniuses ever gathered. Yes, they had some good ideas. They were also responsible for one of the greatest atrocities in human history. ...which is? The Founders didn't invent slavery, if that's what you mean. It's a prehistoric practice. It still exists in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Most of the northern states abolished it roughly the same time the European kingdoms did. The fact that the Founders' social values differed from yours has nothing to do with their intellect, even if they were alive today and held those views, much less when the views they held at the time were not abnormal. And did you really use "LOL" on an adult message board?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 28, 2018 11:50:30 GMT -5
If I'm remembering my presidential history correctly, we've only had three presidential elections where the popular vote loser one the electoral college, and two of them have happened in the past 16 years. And given that, I don't believe we've ever had three, let alone four, SCOTUS justices appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Please correct me if I'm forgetting something and have my facts wrong. Even if you think all of this is awesome and good for the country, it's still quite remarkable because we just haven't been here before. I believe John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), George W. Bush (1st term) (2000), and Donald J. Trump (2016), all became President despite receiving less votes than someone else. Bill Clinton (1992, 1996) twice failed to obtain a popular majority but did receive a plurality of the popular vote in his presidential elections.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 12:01:14 GMT -5
If I'm remembering my presidential history correctly, we've only had three presidential elections where the popular vote loser one the electoral college, and two of them have happened in the past 16 years. And given that, I don't believe we've ever had three, let alone four, SCOTUS justices appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Please correct me if I'm forgetting something and have my facts wrong. Even if you think all of this is awesome and good for the country, it's still quite remarkable because we just haven't been here before. From 1893 to 1895, there were 5 justices serving at the same time whom had been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote (Hayes and Harrison). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_by_court_composition
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 12:09:17 GMT -5
If I'm remembering my presidential history correctly, we've only had three presidential elections where the popular vote loser one the electoral college, and two of them have happened in the past 16 years. And given that, I don't believe we've ever had three, let alone four, SCOTUS justices appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Please correct me if I'm forgetting something and have my facts wrong. Even if you think all of this is awesome and good for the country, it's still quite remarkable because we just haven't been here before. I believe John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), George W. Bush (1st term) (2000), and Donald J. Trump (2016), all became President despite receiving less votes than someone else. Bill Clinton (1992, 1996) twice failed to obtain a popular majority but did receive a plurality of the popular vote in his presidential elections. I think this is going to become more and more common as technology and media makes parties and candidates more receptive to public opinion. They adjust their positions accordingly to fight for undecided and moderate voters. It has become more competitive, and the closer the popular vote result, the more likely the popular vote will not be the same as the electoral vote.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 28, 2018 12:12:06 GMT -5
If I'm remembering my presidential history correctly, we've only had three presidential elections where the popular vote loser one the electoral college, and two of them have happened in the past 16 years. And given that, I don't believe we've ever had three, let alone four, SCOTUS justices appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Please correct me if I'm forgetting something and have my facts wrong. Even if you think all of this is awesome and good for the country, it's still quite remarkable because we just haven't been here before. From 1893 to 1895, there were 5 justices serving at the same time whom had been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote (Hayes and Harrison). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_by_court_compositionThanks. I always remember Hayes. I forgot about Harrison.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 28, 2018 12:16:34 GMT -5
LOL. I refuse to believe that a group of people who excluded 50 percent of the population based on their sex and thought it was OK to enslave people based on their race represents the greatest group of geniuses ever gathered. Yes, they had some good ideas. They were also responsible for one of the greatest atrocities in human history. ...which is? The Founders didn't invent slavery, if that's what you mean. It's a prehistoric practice. It still exists in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Most of the northern states abolished it roughly the same time the European kingdoms did. The fact that the Founders' social values differed from yours has nothing to do with their intellect, even if they were alive today and held those views, much less when the views they held at the time were not abnormal. And did you really use "LOL" on an adult message board?I wasn't even the first in the thread to use it.
|
|
|
Post by nothingtoseehere on Jun 28, 2018 12:56:49 GMT -5
...which is? The Founders didn't invent slavery, if that's what you mean. It's a prehistoric practice. It still exists in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Most of the northern states abolished it roughly the same time the European kingdoms did. The fact that the Founders' social values differed from yours has nothing to do with their intellect, even if they were alive today and held those views, much less when the views they held at the time were not abnormal. And did you really use "LOL" on an adult message board?I wasn't even the first in the thread to use it. ROFL.
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Jun 28, 2018 13:13:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 28, 2018 13:14:40 GMT -5
We have an adult message board??? 😱Guess I should go through these comments more carefully. What exactly have we been discussing?
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 28, 2018 13:37:36 GMT -5
A couple of observations: On the Electoral College it was said:
"The electoral college is actually not a historical anomaly. It was deliberately designed the way it is. Our Founders were perhaps the greatest group of geniuses ever gathered in one place in the history of humankind. They could do math. "
That had nothing to do with the original notion--the original concern was a fear that a demagogue could inflame the passions of the people so that a demagogue could be elected, and a safety measure was needed to override an ill choice.
Some would argue that didn't work.
On the issue of when math matters : time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
However, we are getting a bit into the weeds.
Clearly, the Republicans want to present the President's Choice be it Judge Kavanaugh or TV Judge Pirro, the outstanding choice of Trump (fils).
The Republicans were on record as saying that confirming a choice 262 days before a general election was too close. If that' too close to the general, certainly the 130 some days before November elections is waaay too close.
I would be surprised if the Democrats did not use that argument against the Republicans.
As the Republicans clearly stalled many Obama Federal appointees, those that lean toward the Trump appointees may wish to consider if raising points of propriety are going to fall on deaf ears.
May I suggest instead a discussion of the likely candidates?
Here's something I saw on Facebook --has a bit more detail than what I've seen so far::
Who is on President Trump’s short list for a Justice to replace Kennedy? For the most part a number of federal appeals (Circuit) court judges and Justices of a few state supreme courts.
www.whitehouse.gov/…/president-donald-j-trumps-sup…/
www.politico.com/…/anthony-kennedy-replacements-sup…
WHAT’S BEYOND THE NAMES?
Here are some of the players’ backgrounds
AMY CONEY BARRETT is a former Notre Dame Law School professor who is currently a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She is opposed to Roe v. Wade, though in the best Senate confirmation style would not say so.
Here is some of her hearing: www.c-span.org/video/…
Much of the hearing centered on whether she would put her faith above the law.
She had writings that indicated she would hold them above all others. However she also claimed that she would not. thehill.com/…/349436-trump-judicial-nominee-denies-s…
www.nytimes.com/…/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religio…
She is likely to be an originalist, and will accept challenges to newer caselaw—which looks at America as it is. Whether she would revisit Trump v. Hawaii or Janus on that basis is doubtful. Other jurists who are as conservative as she never do. nwlc.org/…/amy-coney-barretts-troubling-writings-o…/
scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/156/
KEITH BLACKWELL Currently Justice, Georgia Supreme Court
politics.myajc.com/…/donald…/qLTecfcArBgkx6xwJRze0I/
In a significant decision he wrote the opinion for a unanimous Georgia Supreme Court stating that the state could not be sued because of a doctrine called Sovereign Immunity. www.ajc.com/…/did-confedera…/7Aow1MAvha5E0frEy4ZF4K/
politics.myajc.com/…/watchd…/8nWcmK5GrQSA3TRZbaSciM/
He is believed to have an interest in original intent, trying to determine what the 18th century authors of the Constitution had in mind: www.law.com/…/big-data-meets-the-constitution-in-n…/
He has also ruled that a teacher may not challenge a suspension for Facebook comments: firstamendmenthingych.org/georgia-supreme-court-dism…/
CHARLES CANADY Florida Supreme Court Justice and former member of Congress. As a member of Congress he introduced a bill to ban so called partial birth abortions.
He is generally pro business: www.miamiherald.com/n…/business/article74444272.html
But not always: www.miamiherald.com/…/miami-d…/article151255482.html
In a redistricting case he filed an extremely strong dissent opposing redrawing district lines in a case brought by the League of Women Voters: sunshinestatenews.com/…/canady-dissent-redistricting…
Clearly would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade: www.cltampa.com/…/scary-thought-trump-scotus-nomi
the writer goes on to say it's a work in progress. I'll post others.
Might the judges up for consideration be a useful direction for this thread?
|
|